Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
Germany is spending 47 billion dollars in their military, where Czech is spending only 2 billion dollars.
So Germany is spending over 23 times what Czech, even though they only have 8 times the population that Czech has.
But any way Czech would need to increase their military spending with about 2 billion dollars to be in agreed 2% where Germany needs to increase their military spending with about 21 billion dollars, ten times what Czech is currently spending.
Germany is currently spending in their military about same amount money as Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia spend together.
So it isn't like Germany don't invest in Europe's defense, especially when you take in consideration that they give financial aid for several above mentioned countries.
What part about 'its tied to GDP' you don't understand?
My post was just to put things in perspective for people who are saying that Germany don't contribute in for Nato and general defense for Europe. Because speaking about GDP percentages has bad habit to hide which countries actually pay for things and who are mostly freeloaders.
Well, if half of the companies employing people in Czech didn't payed their taxes in Germany maybe our GDP would be better
Amount of Czech's monthly exports to Germany is about 108 billion CZK (~4 billion euros) and its monthly imports from Germany is about 67 billion CZK (~2.5 billion euros), so annual trade surplus with Germany for Czech is about 40 billion CZK (1.5 billion euros).
So like Trump would say Czech is bad trade partner for Germany.
would be, if those companies trading were not hold by german owners. For example Skoda Auto is part of VW concern and it make up almost 20% of our GDP
Czech GDP is 189.982 billion dollars, Skoda Auto's revenue is 13.8 billion dollars (7.2% of Czech GDP), but it probably uses other services in Czech so much that it impact may rise close to that 20%. But Czech Auto's operative profit is 1.23 billion dollars before taxes. It also receives tax breaks and other comprehensive income so much that it total comprehensive income for the year is 1.4 billion dollars. It reports amount corporate taxes it pay to be 227 million dollars.
For Trump part it does not matter if its is German companies doing all the trade, as we can see from his comments about Mexico.
-
Germany is spending 47 billion dollars in their military, where Czech is spending only 2 billion dollars.
So Germany is spending over 23 times what Czech, even though they only have 8 times the population that Czech has.
But any way Czech would need to increase their military spending with about 2 billion dollars to be in agreed 2% where Germany needs to increase their military spending with about 21 billion dollars, ten times what Czech is currently spending.
Germany is currently spending in their military about same amount money as Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia spend together.
So it isn't like Germany don't invest in Europe's defense, especially when you take in consideration that they give financial aid for several above mentioned countries.
What part about 'its tied to GDP' you don't understand?
My post was just to put things in perspective for people who are saying that Germany don't contribute in for Nato and general defense for Europe. Because speaking about GDP percentages has bad habit to hide which countries actually pay for things and who are mostly freeloaders.
Well, if half of the companies employing people in Czech didn't payed their taxes in Germany maybe our GDP would be better
Amount of Czech's monthly exports to Germany is about 108 billion CZK (~4 billion euros) and its monthly imports from Germany is about 67 billion CZK (~2.5 billion euros), so annual trade surplus with Germany for Czech is about 40 billion CZK (1.5 billion euros).
So like Trump would say Czech is bad trade partner for Germany.
-
Germany is spending 47 billion dollars in their military, where Czech is spending only 2 billion dollars.
So Germany is spending over 23 times what Czech, even though they only have 8 times the population that Czech has.
But any way Czech would need to increase their military spending with about 2 billion dollars to be in agreed 2% where Germany needs to increase their military spending with about 21 billion dollars, ten times what Czech is currently spending.
Germany is currently spending in their military about same amount money as Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia spend together.
So it isn't like Germany don't invest in Europe's defense, especially when you take in consideration that they give financial aid for several above mentioned countries.
What part about 'its tied to GDP' you don't understand?
My post was just to put things in perspective for people who are saying that Germany don't contribute in for Nato and general defense for Europe. Because speaking about GDP percentages has bad habit to hide which countries actually pay for things and who are mostly freeloaders.
-
Have at thee! Last post from previous topic was...
Also the Czech economy and GDP is much smaller than Germany's so I would expect Germany to contribute there share with much less objection
Yes this is what all NATO members should do yet only 5 NATO members are paying what they should and contributing fairly, this includes the U.S., Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Poland. So its not just Germany that needs to pay morehttp://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-spend-2-percent-on-defense-says-spd-candidate/a-38368346
even worse than Merkel, oh my god why Germany always have to eff up Europe :/
How Germany is effing up Europe if they don't want spent their money to strengthen their own defense? I understand that Nato countries maybe angry if they think that Germany don't do as what has been agreed on, and they are free to kick Germany out if nothing else helps.
What? There is so many reasons I can't force myself to point them all out. But at least the basics - If we have agreenment both sides should honour it. Its manners 101
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NATO-Member-Countries-Trump/2017/01/25/id/770363/
I know, thats why USA requested recently that all members should pay their agreed share, and as far as I know some states responded positively - even tho they stated taht it will take few years. Some may not do it, but at least they are not shouting it into media ffs
Considering that Czech uses less of their GDP to military than Germany, I would say that you should complain to your own politician first how your country don't do what is agreed on.
I am, but our government promised to raise our funding, besides we are behinde Germany by 0.1 percentage
we are talking about percentages against GDP. Germany gives much more in total for sure
Germany is spending 47 billion dollars in their military, where Czech is spending only 2 billion dollars.
So Germany is spending over 23 times what Czech, even though they only have 8 times the population that Czech has.
But any way Czech would need to increase their military spending with about 2 billion dollars to be in agreed 2% where Germany needs to increase their military spending with about 21 billion dollars, ten times what Czech is currently spending.
Germany is currently spending in their military about same amount money as Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia spend together.
So it isn't like Germany don't invest in Europe's defense, especially when you take in consideration that they give financial aid for several above mentioned countries.
-
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-spend-2-percent-on-defense-says-spd-candidate/a-38368346
even worse than Merkel, oh my god why Germany always have to eff up Europe :/
How Germany is effing up Europe if they don't want spent their money to strengthen their own defense? I understand that Nato countries maybe angry if they think that Germany don't do as what has been agreed on, and they are free to kick Germany out if nothing else helps.
What? There is so many reasons I can't force myself to point them all out. But at least the basics - If we have agreenment both sides should honour it. Its manners 101
Yes this is what all NATO members should do yet only 5 NATO members are paying what they should and contributing fairly, this includes the U.S., Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Poland. So its not just Germany that needs to pay more
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NATO-Member-Countries-Trump/2017/01/25/id/770363/
I know, thats why USA requested recently that all members should pay their agreed share, and as far as I know some states responded positively - even tho they stated taht it will take few years. Some may not do it, but at least they are not shouting it into media ffs
Considering that Czech uses less of their GDP to military than Germany, I would say that you should complain to your own politician first how your country don't do what is agreed on.
-
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-spend-2-percent-on-defense-says-spd-candidate/a-38368346
even worse than Merkel, oh my god why Germany always have to eff up Europe :/
How Germany is effing up Europe if they don't want spent their money to strengthen their own defense? I understand that Nato countries maybe angry if they think that Germany don't do as what has been agreed on, and they are free to kick Germany out if nothing else helps.
-
1
-
-
Hunters in Alaska can now track and kill hibernating bears thanks to a U.S. House and Senate resolution rolling back Obama-era regulations against the practice.
President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on Monday, which rolled back Alaska’s ban on killing the vulnerable bears, along with wolf cubs in dens. It also allows for hunters to target the animals from helicopters.
The Republican-sponsored legislation impacts 76.8 million acres of federally protected national preserves across Alaska.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) took to the Senate floor last month to denounce the previous rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued in August.
Murkowski called it “bad for Alaska, bad for hunters, bad for our native peoples, bad for America,” and a “direct attack on states’ rights.”
In Sullivan’s argument, the lawmaker said the change was for Alaskans “who value hunting as a deep part of their culture.”
-
But what else could be done?
I would be so bold and say actual politics Meaning starting conversation that aren't meant to one-up over another party, but actually start to seek things that both parties can mostly agree and build unity in United States instead constantly seek new ways to divide its people more, meaning seeking compromises that most people from both sides can accept. But it seem that polarization is what politicians and people want, as it isn't just encouraged it is celebrated as like it is something positive and to be proud off.
-
1
-
-
Is this anything like the Bush Stimulus plan?
It does not cut taxes (as in my understanding Bush plan was to cut taxes from first 6000 dollars earned) but it instead gives people about 6000 euros as basic income, which don't change regardless of your other incomes, which means that in some case effective tax rate can go negative (you pay less taxes for your income than you get form government). Also in it effectively more you earn less you get, because your tax rate is higher so you give higher proportion of that extra income back to government (as we have tiered income tax, where rich have higher tax rates than poor). Also it is meant to remove current social benefit systems and replace them with one in order to make benefit system as general simpler and need less paper work.
-
2
-
-
Yes that is idea behind it, because for rich it just works as delayed small tax cut, there is no point to exclude them, because it is basically system that moves money from rich to lower and middle class people and those that just live in social benefits lose some of their benefits.
If I'm understanding this correctly, it will have an immediate impact on those that need assistance most by reducing their monthly funds, with the hope of an eventual trickle down process that will raise their general standard of living? Basically, trickle down economics?
It has some same elements as trickle down economic model, but there is also differences as in it you take money from current benefits system and loaning and pump it to country's economy and then you adjust tax rates in such that you get that money back to give it back in next month and so on. In grande scale it works so that you take money from people with high income and give it to those with moderate income in hopes that it boost general economy by increasing speed in which money circles around. Its major advantages that are seen to it compared to current system is for example if you live now on unemployed benefit or some other social benefit and take job that gives you 400€ in month you will lose part or all of said benefit that you are getting, which is seen in current system as major discouragement to take such work. In basic income system you would just get 400€ extra to your 500-600€ basic income, which would encourage people take such jobs. Of course there is criticism that such system would encourage employers hire more part time workers and cut salaries of current workers. And of course there is probably need to check if level of basic income is enough to live for people who aren't able to work/get job. An other seen benefit is increase of spending power with those who earn median income or less, which is seen to have high potential to boost general economy.
-
1
-
-
EVERYONE gets the free money? Even people over a certain salary range?
Yes that is idea behind it, because for rich it just works as delayed small tax cut, there is no point to exclude them, because it is basically system that moves money from rich to lower and middle class people and those that just live in social benefits lose some of their benefits.
-
Yes. Unconditional means unconditional
Kooky.
They are testing it in Finnland right now.
Huh, does everyone just quit their jobs then? I know I would!
As a side effect, I bet their population will start BOOMING once they realize they can just pump out dependents for free l00t.
Our current unemployment benefits are bigger that proposed basic income, so for unemployed people it just means less income, but for people in with jobs it increases income, especially for those who do temp jobs.
-
I don't think we demand anything from foreign passports except that they identify the person and not be fake.Isn't that bit old news, because now its been at least for 11 years that order to get passport one needs to give clear picture of your face and fingerprints to government who will share them with other governments.
Interesting. I don't remember providing my fingerprints for my passport, but its been a while so maybe I did?
It seems that USA only demands such thing from foreign passports and even though US Passports also now have biometric chip where such data could be saved and read from distance it isn't used.
Clearly we need to take visa free travelling from people travelling with US Passports as they clearly have insecure passports
As for foreigners travelling to the U.S., if they wish to enter U.S. visa-free under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), they are now required to possess machine-readable passports that comply with international standards. Additionally, for travellers holding a valid passport issued on or after 26 October 2006, such a passport must be a biometric passport if used to enter the U.S. visa-free under the VWP.
Finland and other EU countries adopted biometric passport because USA required it for visa free travelling, I thought that it was two way street where US passports have same information, but it seems that they don't.
-
Isn't that bit old news, because now its been at least for 11 years that order to get passport one needs to give clear picture of your face and fingerprints to government who will share them with other governments.
Interesting. I don't remember providing my fingerprints for my passport, but its been a while so maybe I did?
It seems that USA only demands such thing from foreign passports and even though US Passports also now have biometric chip where such data could be saved and read from distance it isn't used.
Clearly we need to take visa free travelling from people travelling with US Passports as they clearly have insecure passports
-
Isn't that bit old news, because now its been at least for 11 years that order to get passport one needs to give clear picture of your face and fingerprints to government who will share them with other governments.
-
Hooray! Not only is our every move observed by several organisations Soviet style, no, we are capitalists! We will not only have you under constant surveillance, we will also sell all the information we get to private firms. And we will make you pay for the surveillance via tax money as well. Also, we will tell you to be thankful for it... ever had such personalised ads? I especially like the political ones... we can now adjust our political ads EXACTLY to you, so that you may be stripped entirely from any form of reason based voting and make purely emotional decisions. What, surprised? You do it for 90% of the products you buy already. When was the last time you saw an ad that actually told you something about the product? And yet you buy more than ever. Obviously our political campaigns will be run te same way. Heck, that's basically how Trump won.
Did I mention we are also the pinnacle of individual freedom and all other ideologies are evil?
The better question should be who is dumb enough to buy a product (or candidate) based solely on an ad?
Billions of people
-
2
-
-
Well I tried to look into it, but it seems to be a bit confusing. According to the wonderfully reliable wikipedia, the Armalite AR-15 was an assault rifle that has been discontinued but is the basis for the M-16, and Colt purchased the design and started making a semi-automatic version for civilian and police use. So I am assuming typically when you hear about someone using an AR-15 to kill intruders or schoolchildren (trigger warning!) it is the semi-automatic one. My apologies.
ArmaLite AR-15 is assault rifle designed by ArmaLite, Colt bought ArmaLite in 1959 and made variant of it for US military that went with name M16 Assault Rifle during Vietnam War.
Colt has discontinued to make AR-15 assault rifles, but it also started to make self semi-automatic versions of them called Colt AR-15 for civilian use in 1964, more commonly just AR-15, because other gun manufactures in US have made of tons of clones of the weapon when it gained popularity after 1994, which has lead people calling Colt AR-15 and these clones all as AR-15s.
AR it self stands for ArmaLite Rifle, they used it for all their rifle designs not just assault rifles.
-
My take on this whole thing is that it is entirely unnecessary. You have a large group of marchers without any real clear purpose or agenda. They've won the election, and they are still marching. It smacks more of zealotry than political activism, and it is all to support this ridiculous narrative that the Trump Administration is a victim of the Evil Media. Then you have a small group of anarchist types who basically want to get the snot beaten out of them because that plays into the ridiculous narrative that Trump is a fascist and this is the start of a new race war. Both groups are morons.
Well let me put it this way, where there anti Obama marches 3 or how many months after is election where almost all media are making fun of him for getting Nobel prize for ... who knows?
"Obama’s election in 2008 was preceded and followed by violent attacks and property destruction targeted against minorities.
Kaylon Johnson, an African American campaign worker for Obama, was physically assaulted for wearing an Obama T-shirt in Louisiana following the 2008 election. The three white male attackers shouted “**** Obama!” and “**** president!” as they broke Johnson’s nose and fractured his eye-socket, requiring surgery.
More frequently, Obama’s presidency was marked by effigies of our first black president hanging from nooses across the country, for example in Kentucky, Washington State, and Maine, or being burned around the world. What Trump supporters fail to remember is that following Obama’s election, property was destroyed across the country, for example in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Carolina, and a predominately black church was torched in Massachusetts.
In 2008, anti-Obama protesters lashed out against minorities because of their discontentment with a black man being voted into the office of president for the first time in our nation’s history. Conversely, in 2016, anti-Trump protesters are holding mostly peaceful demonstrations because of their discontentment with a man, who has ostracized minorities, being voted into the office of president."
-
Political Correctness is to express opinions that aren't what you really believe in order to gain political support, which is what most of Trump's opinions seems to be as he flipflops constantly subjects in order to gain political support. In past politicians where blamed to be PC in order to gain support from minorities like African Americans, Latinos and sexual minorities, but this days it seems that new target of PC is rural Americans.
Political correctness is often also linked to use of non-derogatory language and avoiding to speak certain subjects, when it comes to those previous mentioned minorities and it seems that with change of its target also tone of political correct language has change in so much so that they call it now politically incorrectness, even though purpose is absolutely same, but now people who are PC seems to be very open about fact that they are PC, although as said they like to use term that gives indication that they are some thing that opposes PC.
Isn't being "politically correct" more avoiding saying things that could be perceived as being offensive? Trump would certainly not qualify under that.
I would say that avoiding to say things that could be perceived as being offensive, is just somebody being well-mannered/correct, politically in front implies that person themself or other people see them doing so to gain political points, especially if they use mannerism/correctness that don't come from their own back ground.
So person who is incorrect towards certain group of people in order to please other group of people is very similar than your classical political correctism.
Although for lots of people this days political correctness and correctness seem to be the same thing, without any difference in meaning, in which case politically incorrect just means being ****, which is quite far from being correct. Although good manners have never prevented people finding ways to be ****, so who knows.
-
Political Correctness is to express opinions that aren't what you really believe in order to gain political support, which is what most of Trump's opinions seems to be as he flipflops constantly subjects in order to gain political support. In past politicians where blamed to be PC in order to gain support from minorities like African Americans, Latinos and sexual minorities, but this days it seems that new target of PC is rural Americans.
Political correctness is often also linked to use of non-derogatory language and avoiding to speak certain subjects, when it comes to those previous mentioned minorities and it seems that with change of its target also tone of political correct language has change in so much so that they call it now politically incorrectness, even though purpose is absolutely same, but now people who are PC seems to be very open about fact that they are PC, although as said they like to use term that gives indication that they are some thing that opposes PC.
-
1
-
-
He is taking money from foreign power, which is against U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause according those who have expressed their concerns about ethics.
same as Clintons
Clinton's had business that took money from foreign powers when Bill was president?
Yes - Well it was his wife 'Charity' but we all know better:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html
Clinton Foundation was founded by Bill in 1997 for rising funds for to build presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas. It become charity in 2001, which is when Bill Clinton become its sole key member. Hilary didn't have official position in it until 2013. Although she had ethics agreement (which was criticized because of possible of conflict of interest that it still left open by ethics experts) with State Department during her time as Secretary of State.
I would also point out that Bill Clinton was found to be in violation of ethics and more during his presidency.
Also Washington Post for example reported possible ethics conflict for Hillary because of her role in Clinton Foundation in 2014, just because she was making her 2016 presidency bid, which lead Hilary giving up her position in foundation in 2015.
-
He is taking money from foreign power, which is against U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause according those who have expressed their concerns about ethics.
same as Clintons
Not sure how that excuses anything, since people were clamoring to throw Hillary in jail.
yeah but not because of Saudi dollars. I am not saying I agree with lobbying, I am just saying its not anything new or related to Trump
How is it not related to Trump that business that he owns take money from foreign powers?
-
He is taking money from foreign power, which is against U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause according those who have expressed their concerns about ethics.
same as Clintons
Clinton's had business that took money from foreign powers when Bill was president?
-
Speaking about Turkish enrichment
At Trump's D.C. Hotel, A U.S.-Turkey Relations Conference Stirs Up Ethics Questions
This spring, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., will host a three-day event co-hosted by a business group.
But ethics experts have concerns about special interest groups, lobbyists and foreign governments bringing their business to Trump, who has a dual role as president and innkeeper. These critics point to the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits presidents from accepting benefits from foreign powers.
ehh well, so someone is concerned about 'ethics' of previously business mans advisor paying for lobbing while Hillary already being part of government is getting paid by Saudi is not seen as unethical? oh cmon...
You mean that they are concerned of private businesses that current president has with foreign power.
whole text is in past tense so I am not sure what d you mean
I highlighted ethics concerns mentioned in the article
Again, all this stuff happen when he was NOT part of government. Are there any records of that lobbing happening now?
You are saying that meeting that has not happened has already happened?
See this line
"This spring, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., will host a three-day event co-hosted by a business group."
Here even with more detail
"What: The 36th Annual Conference on U.S.-Turkey Relations is scheduled for May 21-23."
And who is giving money to Trump
"Who: The Turkey-U.S. Business Council, known as TAIK, and the American Turkish Council are the sponsors. The former group is chaired by a Turkish-American businessman, Ekim Alptekin, who has ties to the Turkish government."
"More about who: Alptekin also is the founder of Inovo BV, a company that paid Flynn's consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, $530,000 for lobbying work that may have benefited the Turkish government."
And then there is this
"But ethics experts have concerns about special interest groups, lobbyists and foreign governments bringing their business to Trump, who has a dual role as president and innkeeper. These critics point to the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits presidents from accepting benefits from foreign powers."
And here you have in more detail what article says about ethics concerns.
Still not sure whats that big deal here, its not like lobbying started with Trump and its not like he done anything wrong in this regard either
He is taking money from foreign power, which is against U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause according those who have expressed their concerns about ethics.
Politics 2017 part V
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
It is operative income from which they pay taxes to Germany if they pay taxes to Germany. Taxes from revenue related things are paid to Czech.
Revenue is what they get from selling cars they make, operative income is profit that they make from those sales. Difference goes to salaries, sales taxes, components/materials, etc. from which taxes are paid to Czech and which generally increase Czech's economy, as most of the cars they make are exported out from Czech, which means that those sales bring more money to Czech's economy. So that money mostly goes to Czech, although they may buy materials/components from China or some other even cheaper country, as for example Czech trade deficit with China is only little bit less than their trade surplus with Germany. By looking numbers alone you could make simplification that it is like taking money from Germany and sending it to China.
Trump thing is because he just happens to talk about how similar situation is bad for USA, US companies produce goods, like cars, in Mexico and then bring them to be sold in US, meaning that he sees that it benefits Mexico.